Skip to comments.IQ tests are “meaningless and too simplistic”, claim researchers
Posted on 12/19/2012 9:22:47 PM PST by Olog-hai
It will come as a relief to those who failed to shine when taking an IQ test.
After conducting the largest ever study of intelligence, researchers have found that far from indicating how clever you are, IQ testing is actually rather meaningless.
In a bid to investigate the value of IQ, scientists asked more than 100,000 participants to complete 12 tests that required planning, reasoning, memory and attention. They also filled in a survey on their background. They (the scientists) discovered that far from being down to one single factor, what is commonly regarded as intelligence is influenced by three different elementsshort-term memory, reasoning, and verbal ability.
Traditional IQ tests are too simplistic, according to the research, which found that what makes someone intelligent is too complex to boil down to a single exam.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Liberals are proof of this. Most of them who claim to be certified geniuses are blithering idiots.
Call me when Mensa lets the Hollywood star of the week that's in rehab join.
Another lively thread it is going to be.
I’ll make my provocations early then.
(1) IQ tests measure the ability to perform on IQ tests.
(2) IQ tests measure the ability to solve puzzles.
I’d guess that the “researchers” scored well below 100.
Most 'rats would fail and would therefore need to have their firearms confiscated.
IQ tests measure abstract reasoning ability. That’s not nothing, but it ain’t everything either.
The traditional SAT test measures abstract reasoning ability AND reading comprehension. The weights assigned to the two parts were chosen so that the average scores of boys equals the average scores of girls. For a relatively cheap, standardized exam, this is a pretty good.
That's dumb. How can a test be predictive if it's weighted to support a particular outcome?
That being established, I.Q. is a simple dipstick that measures quantity. It doesn't indicate if or how much is used or how it is applied.
Sour grapes. Only people who do not have high IQs think they are not distinguishing. Only people with high IQs know there is a difference.
One reason it is believed that IQ doesn’t matter is that so few people have truly high ones. I have several relatives with S. B. scores over 180. If I didn’t know them, and have the opportunity to learn from them, I wouldn’t think they were any more useful than a unicorn. If I were not related to them, I would never have met them. They are just so rare.
I would gladly pay salaries proportional to IQ. That would be a really good bet, all things being equal.
‘IQ tests are meaningless and too simplistic, claim researchers’
All of them, surprisingly, with extremely low IQs.
It’s remarkable that people here are still putting such strong stock in IQ tests when they were devised by such people as psychologists and eugenicists, and the tests thereof are still associated rather strongly with eugenics in particular. Just an observation.
That assumes an equal amount of work. For those with high IQs who do not apply themselves, the results are not so stellar, and those with low IQ (often willing to take risks, perhaps because they do not understand the downside), hard work pays off, more often than not.
I must also note that those of us who have performed well on the tests are more likely to defend them.
IN OTHER WORDS YOU SHUD GET INTA PRINCETON O HARVARD BECAUSE YOU VOLUNTEERED AFTER (government) SKOOL TO CHANGE THE BEDPANS ON AIDS PATIENTS
***not joking here. These days your bllsht liberal life experiences (such as my brother was a drug attic ||***correct pronunciation|| and my mother was whore while I brought drinks to the piano player downstairs) will give you a leg up on many college admissions
IQ provides potential, not results.
A person of below-average IQ, no matter how hard he works, will never be a stellar performer in occupations requiring high IQ.
OTOH, a great many high-IQ people spend a lot of their time and energy bitching about the fact that people they work with who aren’t as smart are doing better than they are. Don’t believe me? Attend a Mensa meeting.
Think of it as height. A very occasional person under 6’ might succeed in the NBA, but in general those who succeed are above 6-6. The taller they are, the more likely to succeed. That’s because you can teach the skills, but you can’t teach someone to be 7-2.
Again, a 7-2 person unwilling to work hard would not succeed.
You’re right. High IQ people are more likely to drop out of high school than average students. Unfortunately, being able to learn things quickly sometimes keeps individuals from gaining the character that is also required to succeed.
In the sixties many leftists tried to spread the lie of the tabula rasa or blank slate. You were only what society had stuffed into your head. That myth has been thoroughly debunked. Humans are hardwired for many things including intelligence. If there is no such thing as IQ or meaningful intelligence tests, I could then examine the IQs of scientists, doctors, lawyers, mathematicians, engineers, architects, etal and find a lot of average or sub-average IQs. I don’t think I’d find that.
I have also seen people who knew they were not as quick on the uptake work very hard and surpass others who theoretically should have run rings around them. They made up for (actually, overcompensated) for their deficits by working hard.
In the long run, being willing to put out the effort and not just rest on one's laurels is the most valuable in relatively ordinary life.
Sure, If you have a wee bit of trouble with nuclear physics, you might not get the top research position at CERN, but there are numerous other (often prosperous) niches to inhabit.
You probably could do well in the NBA if you can turn fast and shoot well, and while there is a definite height preference there, the little guy would have the same maneuverability advantage a two-year old has running from an adult. (Try that some time, they can turn on a dime and give you 9 cents change.) Combine that with the ability to hit quickly, often, and accurately from anywhere and if they could get a chance to show their stuff (past the height bias), they might do well. But littler guys won't put the effort in because they realize the height bias exists, and go off in other pursuits.
With regard to the weights of the SAT that produce a total score: there is no good argument for any weight, and - logically - no good argument against any weight. In such a case as this “the rule of insufficient reason” says apply equal weights.
Also: the component scores are made available, along with the combined score. So, if anybody wanted, they could apply a different weighting scheme.
We have a winner.
IQ tests were advocated by liberal Eugenics advocates like Margeret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson .
No, it doesn't assume anything, and neither should you. The data is what it is, and the math indicates a strong correlation.
The "tabula rasa" theory is the basis of free enterprise and personal liberty. It implies that anyone has the potential to rise above their circumstances through effort.
IQ is considered determinative, which makes it a convenient tool for nanny-state authoritarians to maintain their power over everyone else.
If a talent isn't applied nor developed, it doesn't mean squat. That is my point.
ALL other things being equal, your numbers will work out every time. Otherwise, you don't have a valid experiment.
But all other things are not always equal, and thus, you will find among those ranks people who applied what they had to work with and did better than those who may have had a higher IQ.
While everybody should have the same opportunity, people are different. Some people have high aptitudes in some areas (math,science, etc.) that others don't. The facts are incontrovertible: if you don't have the necessary high intelligence for a lot of jobs that need people with high IQs or aptitudes, you're not going to succeed. And the sexes are different as well as a number of studies have conclusively proved.
Nope. It's the basis of the idea that mankind is infinitely malleable, that he can be changed and molded to fit the new socialist world.
It's the human equivalent of Lysenkoism, that genetics is a lie.
Eugenics is not the study of human differences and how they are (or are not) inherited, it's the promotion of selective breeding (or forced non-breeding by sterilization).
But let's assume that the Nazis and others who supported eugenics in the 20th killed 15M people.
The most aggressive supporters of the tabula rasa theory are Communists, since they can then dodge the question of how they're going to get around innate human nature. According to them, there IS no innate human nature. Tabula rasa.
The TR boys killed upwards of 100M people in the 20th, possibly as many as 150M.
If we're going to discredit a theory because of how it is used, shouldn't it be TR that's discredited, not eugenics?
I was a bad bad boy back in the 60’s and 70’s. Anyone remember those Minnesota test’s?
I never ever answered one correctly, I just randomly marked them.
Okay, I think I confused “tabula rasa” with human potential for maturation and adaptation. More than anything else, the notion of the mind as a blank slate implies a neutral state, that under the proper direction can be influenced, or set into motion, and through work, acquire whatever skill and understanding required to do what they want.
I was primarily referring to the intellectual capacity, which is what IQ tests claim to measure— much less to motivation, though this is also influenced externally.
I guess I should have wiki’d the term before jumping; I didn’t realize that as you imply ‘tabula rasa’ means it is of some totally plastic or malleable substance. There is an elastic core to people and I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
If you know of an appropriate term for this notion, I’d appreciate hearing it. And, thanks for the correction.
Not in the sense that John Locke referred to it-- his definition of the individual was more general and complex.
Eugenics is not the study of human differences and how they are (or are not) inherited, it's the promotion of selective breeding
I understand this, but determinism is implicit in genetics. Eugenics is it's practical application.
The most aggressive supporters of the tabula rasa theory are Communists,
Classic Liberal thinkers also, but not carried to the absurdly simplistic-- ultimately deterministic--extent of Stalin and Mao.